Message 04655 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04171 Message: 7/40 L2 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Daisyworld was Re: [ox-en] Material peer production is possible!


Whilst reading about Daisyworld, it occurred to me that Lovelock and Watson's model of macro phenomena may act, at least in analogy, as a method (*ergon*) by which the principles, elements and compounds of our unfolding, develop from their immature (*germ*) to their mature (*telos*) and declining forms ...

(( Daisyworld is a computer simulation that models the progression of a hypothetical world orbiting a sun whose temperature is slowly increasing. Daisyworld was introduced by James Lovelock and Andrew Watson to illustrate the plausibility of the Gaia hypothesis in a paper published in 1983. ))

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:41:30 [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED] Franz Nahrada wrote:

Michel Bouwens writes:

(p2p production can)
not work with rival material goods, unless you find a solution for
cost-recovery and future investment.

Dear Michel.

the secret is in the word "rival". So, material goods need to be made
"non-rival". Another word for this is "abundant" or (since some seem not
to like this word) "sufficient".

at this point there is only one solution, and it is not one that depends
on the external economy and its scarcity of value (see the remark on
Dmytryi at the very end of this post). You are right that there should be
a sharp distinction between cooperatives and p2p production, but at the
same time it is imagineable that cooperatives work out arrangements that
lead to a circulation of material goods and therefore enable mutual supply
in a circular process, to some degree eliminating the need for monetary
income. This economy would work in a biomorphical way, the surplus on one
point being the input on others ...

 "Daisyworld examines the energy budget of a planet populated by two
  different types of plants, black daisies and white daisies. The colour
  of the daisies influences the albedo of the planet such that black
  daisies absorb light and warm the planet, while white daisies reflect
  light and cool the planet.

  Competition (rivalry) between the daisies (based on temperature
  effects on growth rates) leads to a balance of populations that tends
  to favour a planetary temperature close to that which is optimum for
  the daisy growth.

  Lovelock and Watson demonstrated the stability of Daisyworld by
  forcing the sun that it orbits to evolve along the main sequence,
  taking it from low to high solar constant. This perturbation of
  Daisyworld's receipt of solar radiation caused the balance of daisies
  to gradually shift from black to white but the planetary temperature
  was always regulated back to this optimum (except at the extreme ends
  of solar evolution).

  This situation is very different from the corresponding abiotic world,
  where temperature is unregulated and rises linearly with solar output.

  Later versions of Daisyworld introduced a range of grey daisies and
  populations of grazers and predators, and found that these further
  increased the stability of the homeostasis. More recently other
  research, modelling the real biochemical cycles of Earth, and using
  various "guilds" of life (eg. photosynthesisers, decomposers,
  herbivores and primary and secondary carnivores) has also been shown
  to produce Daisyworld-like regulation and stability, which helps to
  explain planetary biological diversity [citation needed].

  This enables nutrient recycling within a regulatory framework derived
  by natural selection amongst species, where one being's harmful waste
  becomes low energy food for members of another guild.

  This research on the Redfield ratio [1] of Nitrogen to Phosphorus
  shows that local biotic processes can regulate global systems (See
  Keith Downing & Peter Zvirinsky, The Stimulated Evolution of
  Biochemical Guilds: Reconciling Gaia Theory with Natural Selection)."


On the subject of astrophysics, I note in Marx's chapter on *the Meteors*, he wrote:

 "Epicurus' theory of the celestial bodies and the processes connected
  with them, or his theory of meteors (in this one term he includes it
  all), stands in opposition not only to Democritus, but to the opinion
  of Greek philosophy as a whole.

  Worship of the celestial bodies is a cult practised by all Greek
  philosophers. The system of the celestial bodies is the first naive
  and nature-determined existence of true reason [Vernunft]. The same
  position is taken by Greek self-consciousness in the domain of the
  mind [Geist]. It is the solar system of the mind. The Greek
  philosophers therefore worshipped their own mind in the celestial


  [T]he heavenly bodies are the supreme realisation of weight. In them
  all antinomics between form and matter, between concept and existence,
  which constituted the development of the atom, are resolved; in them
  all required determinations are realised.

  The heavenly bodies are eternal and unchangeable; they have their
  centre of gravity in, not outside, themselves. Their only action is
  motion, and, separated by empty space, they swerve from the straight
  line, and form a system of repulsion and attraction while at the same
  time preserving their own independence and also, finally, generating
  time out of themselves as the form of their appearance.

  The heavenly bodies are therefore the atoms become real. In them
  matter has received in itself individuality. Here Epicurus must
  therefore have glimpsed the highest existence of his principle, the
  peak and culminating point of his system. He asserted that he assumed
  the atom so that nature would be provided with immortal foundations.

  He alleged that he was concerned with the substantial individuality of
  matter. But when he comes upon the reality of his nature (and he knows
  no other 'nature but the mechanical'), when he comes upon independent,
  indestructible matter in the heavenly bodies whose eternity and
  unchangeability were proved by the belief of the people, the judgment
  of philosophy, the evidence of the senses: then his one and only
  desire is to pull it down into earthly transience. He turns vehemently
  against those who worship an independent nature containing in itself
  the quality of individuality. This is his most glaring contradiction.

  Hence Epicurus feels that here his previous categories break down,
  that the method of his theory becomes different. And the profoundest
  knowledge achieved by his system, its most thorough consistency, is
  that he is aware of this and expresses it consciously.

  Indeed, we have seen how the whole Epicurean philosophy of nature is
  pervaded with the contradiction between essence and existence, between
  form and matter. But this contradiction is resolved in the heavenly
  bodies, the conflicting moments are reconciled. In the celestial
  system matter has received form into itself, has taken up the
  individuality into itself and has thus achieved its independence. But
  at this point it ceases to be affirmation of abstract

  In the world of the atoms, as in the world of appearance, form
  struggled against matter; the one determination transcended the other
  and precisely in this contradiction abstract-individual
  self-consciousness felt its nature objectified. The abstract form,
  which, in the shape of matter, fought against abstract matter, was
  this self-consciousness itself. But now, when matter has reconciled
  itself with the form and has been rendered self-sufficient, individual
  self-consciousness emerges from its pupation, proclaims itself the
  true principle and opposes nature, which has become independent." [3]

have a good weekend

-- adam

[0] Hello Earth




On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:41:30 [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED] Franz Nahrada wrote:

... I think this is not a mere utopian vision, but the tendency of automation
is that production is becoming increasingly biomorphical (as I laid out in
OS yearbook) - . Increasingly material goods can be produced wherever they
are needed, with miniaturized production equipment. Why should there not
be a tendency from sharing designs to arranging material flows that enable
some parts in the network to provide specialized kinds of goods and have
them shared with others, knowing that more and more nodes in the network
are doing the same? Automation is the key to reduce the factor of labor
drastically, to embed production in units of the right size to establish a
circular exchange.

I have recently seen images of the perfect organisation of the feeding of
Buddhist monks by the general population somewhere near you. Now imagine
an "order of technoscientists" constantly improving the tools and the
flows between production units which are controlled and run by general
population. Of course this is just a mental model, we do not like to
create an exclusive elite, but for the understanding of the process its
very vital to see that the material system feeds into the system of
culture without expectation of equivalent exchange. Software developers
are the Buddhist monks of tomorrow, but the general population has not
understood yet that feeding them provides abundance.

In the moment when the system of production is sufficiently close to
natural processes like photosynthesis, driven by design intelligence and
the general intellect of the global communities of practise (which now
replace our mental image of the monks),, the sharing and moving of
material goods could be done in similar ways like filesharing. You get a
taste of this when you look at peer networks like bookcrossing or
couchsurfers, which are allready doing it - use the abundance of the
existing capitalist production process which allready often provides us
with much more than we need -  to undermine the monetary exchange which is
clumsy, boring and without fun.

Once we really get a grasp of really efficient home production, the rules
of the games will change drastically. In this respect I share Stefan
Mertens optimism, allthough I hate to bring it all down to the notion or
image of the fabber. There are very interesting intermediate schemes which
work at community level - technologically possible, but neglected from the
point of view of capitalist production. These are the ones that carry
quality and potential to encompass substantial areas of human needs.


Concernig Dmitryi, I think that his rent-sharing models will not work. Its
based on a short moment in history, where additional capital was provided
in the form of debts in expectation of future profits. Its a
dot-com-bubble dream that is obsolete because there is too much business
for the proceeding of business. In this respect I share the criticism of
the crisis groups: unless you free production from the contradictions of
value and its descendants (money, capital, rent) you will never get
another result than poverty on one side, accumulation on the other, and a
society falling way behind its potentials.

all the best

Franz (in recovery)
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT04171 Message: 7/40 L2 [In index]
Message 04655 [Homepage] [Navigation]